Cain v. Cain’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai'i) Ltd. (1994), Wong v. City and County of Honolulu (1983)
51 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Stachler · Waianae Model Neighborhood Area Ass'n v. City & County of Honolulu · Richards v. Richards · Associated Engineers & Contractors, Inc. v. State · Federal Electric Corporation v. Fasi
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Support orders; division of property. (a) Upon granting a divorce, the court may make such further orders as shall appear just and equitable ... (3) finally dividing and distributing the estate of the parties, real, personal, or mixed, whether community, joint, or separate; and (4) allocating, as between the parties, the responsibility for the payment of the debts of the parties whether community, joint, or separate, and the attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred by each party by reason of the divorce. In making such further orders, the court shall take into consideration: the respective merits of the parties, the relative abilities of the parties, the condition in which each party will be left by the divorce, the burdens imposed upon either party for the benefit of the children of the parties, and all other circumstances of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“law of the case is akin to res judicata but is more limited in its application. It relates solely to questions of law and is confined in its operation to subsequent proceedings in the same case. [Under the doctrine,] a determination of a question of law made by an appellate court in the course of an action becomes “the law of the case” and may not be disputed by a reopening of the question at a later stage of litigation. It normally commands adherence but is not subject to the inflexibility of res judicata.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jordan v. Hamada“(a) Effect.. . . Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.